The Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (aka, mormoninterpreter.com) is an online/print journal that publishes purportedly peer-reviewed articles. Most of the articles are first-rate, but in some cases, the citation cartel who conducts the peer reviews let some articles slip through with problems. Here I offer my peer reviews of these articles.

Interpreter Peer Reviewed

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

BMAF criticism-my response

This post is my response to an article by Joe V. Andersen that was initially posted on the BMAF web page. Although this didn't appear in the Interpreter, so far as I know, Book of Mormon Central added it to their archive. Which isn't surprising, since Book of Mormon Central is a front for the AAF (Ancient America Foundation), and BMAF is a "division" of Book of Mormon Central. They're all Mesoamerican advocates, so the names and organizations are distinctions without a difference.

Whenever you see Book of Mormon Central, think Book of Mormon Central America and you'll know what they're really up to.

Here, one of the charter members of the Council of Springville offers his review of Moroni's America. In the interest of civility, I've been refraining from naming names, but it's impossible to post this article and my peer-review comments without mentioning Joe. Joe's a great guy. I like him a lot. We just agree to disagree, and I enjoy his comments in a friendly manner. I trust he does the same.

Overall, I found the paper a reiteration of everything I've seen in the past from the Mesoamerican proponents:

1. Outright repudiation of modern prophets and apostles.
2. An insistence on a particular interpretation of the text supported by such adverbs as clearly, obviously, etc.
3. Straw man arguments against positions I haven't taken.

Here it is, with my peer-review comments in red:

Response to
Jonathan Neville’s Two Books: Moroni’s
America: The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon and Letter VII

[First, my thanks to Joe
for all the time he spent analyzing and reviewing Moroni’s America. I suppose I should also thank the Meso club known
as BMAF—a division of the supposedly neutral Book of Mormon Central, itself a
front for the Meso club known as Ancient America Foundation—for posting it on
the BMAF.org site. Any publicity is good publicity, and I want more people to
know about the alternatives to the Meso theory. That said, I caution readers
that Joe has set up a straw man argument. He misrepresents what I wrote and my
basic argument about Letter VII.]

Jonathan Neville in his new book,
Moroni’s America: The North American
Setting for the Book of Mormon,[i]
erroneously claims that Mesoamericanists look under the wrong light of the 1842
articles in the Times and Seasons for
their light and knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon. [Not sure why this is erroneous. Most Meso books include
these articles as support, if not the primary origin of the Meso theory, and
some Meso LDS scholars continue to use the articles in their presentations
today.] He proposes, “When we read the Book of Mormon under the light
Joseph [Smith] and Oliver [Cowdery] provided, we see it in a completely new way”
(p. xi). Neville further states, among other things, that we need modern
revelation to match real-world locations with Book of Mormon locations (p. 11).
[Agreed.] To support his thinking, he relies
heavily upon his proposal that Oliver Cowdery received revelation to the effect
that the location of the Hill Cumorah in New York is the location of the final
battles of the Book of Mormon people. [Except I don’t propose
Oliver received revelation. While we don’t have a record that he or Joseph
received revelation specifically about the battles on the west side of the hill
in New York, that doesn’t mean they didn’t receive revelation. But it doesn’t
matter whether they did or not receive such a revelation because they visited
Mormon’s record repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York.] He cites
Cowdery’s Letter No. VII: Oliver
Cowdery’s Message to the World about the Hill Cumorah[ii] in
an attempt to show that Cowdery received revelation about the Hill Cumorah’s
location in Palmyra, New York, which he claims is the same hill Ramah/Cumorah
described in the Book of Mormon. [I’m not attempting to
show Oliver received revelation. This is a red herring argument.]

Neville makes the following foundational
statements at the beginning of Moroni’s
America:[iii]

·“What
we need is a reliable starting
point—a reliablepin in the map. That’s why we need modern revelation” (p. 11).

·“Oliver
Cowdery explicitly and unequivocally located the hill Cumorah in New York. . . I
stick a . . . pin in the map in western New York” (p. 12; Letter VII, pp. 57–65).

·“D&C
125:3 says, in part, ‘Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land
opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.’ This verse is not conclusive about
geography, but it doesn’t need to be. The Lord named the site Zarahemla. I
want to see if it fits so I stick a pin
in eastern Iowa, along the Mississippi River across from Nauvoo [Montrose,
Iowa]” (p. 12).

·“There
it is. Book of Mormon geography in a nutshell” (p. 12).

And that is his “modern
revelation?” [Sure, I accept the D&C as modern
revelation, and it refers to both Cumorah and Zarahemla.] His book
contains myriads of “new ways” of justifying the North American setting for the
Book of Mormon, claiming that when readers look at this new way (new
revelation, see p. 13 referencing the ninth article of faith about future
revelation) through the lenses of Joseph and Oliver, the following examples of
some of the geographical facts are “revealed”:

·That
Joseph Smith was buried “in an ancient Nephite cemetery in Nauvoo across the
river from Nauvoo” (see p. xi).

·That
Montrose, Iowa, located on the west side of the Mississippi across from Nauvoo,
is the Book of Mormon city of Zarahemla (p. 12).

·That
“sea west in Alma 22:27 had to be the lower Mississippi River,” meaning south
of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers (pp. 34 and 36).

·That
the west sea was also Lake Michigan (pp. 37, 189).

·That
the west sea was also Lake Erie (pp. 312–315).

·“That
head of the river is also where the river Sidon flows into the sea west” (p. 46).

·That
“perhaps the entire section from the Missouri to the Ohio River, is the head of
Sidon” (p. 279). But more likely “head of Sidon . . . refers to a confluence of
rivers [in this case the Illinois and Missouri]” (p. 46).

·That
Lake Ontario is the east sea (p. 265).

·That
the east sea is also the Atlantic Ocean (p. 36).

·That
the narrow strip of wilderness is the full length of the Ohio and Missouri
rivers (p. 19), including the Mississippi between its confluence with the Ohio
and Missouri rivers (p. 53).

That
the east sea is also the Mississippi River/Sidon (see pp. 164–65) and that
“Moroni had fortified the land of Jershon, and presumably the sea, or
mighty river, it bordered” (p. 169. Thus, according to Neville, Jershon is
located on the east side of Sidon/Mississippi (p. 169) and not near the
east sea as required by the Book of Mormon.

·That
the terms “down” or “up” mean “simply moving with or against a river current”
(p. 39).

·That
Jershon is located on the east side of Sidon/Mississippi and not near the east
sea (p. 169), unless, as Neville claims, the east sea is also the Mississippi
River/Sidon (see pp. 164–5) and “Moroni had fortified the land of Jershon, and
presumably the sea, or mighty river, it bordered” (p. 169.

·That
Manti was located near Huntsville, Missouri, on the west side of
Sidon/Mississippi (p. 143; 100 air miles from Zarahemla/Montrose and 250 miles
from the Ohio and Mississippi confluence).

·That
Joseph Smith “could have” used the term “sea” for a “mighty river” (p. 34).

·That
“Mormon could have described it [the mighty river] as a sea” (p. 35).

·That
the Hill Cumorah in upstate New York is the original hill Cumorah of the Book
of Mormon (p. 12).

·That
to “march” could have involved “riding horses” or using “canoes or boats” (pp.
196–97).

·That
when Mormon carried his son Moroni to the land of Zarahemla, it was likely in
“a boat, like a canoe” (p. 240).

·That
when Christ appeared at city Bountiful, He “may have appeared in the vicinity
of Lake Ontario. Perhaps it was in the same place as the Kirtland temple” (p.
235).

·That
Chattanooga, Tennessee, was the location of the city of Nephi (p. 127).

·That
the Ohio River is the east sea—near the Mississippi where Antionum was located
(pp. 169–70). Therefore, somehow the narrow strip of wilderness was also the
east sea?

·That
when Zoram and his army crossed the Mississippi River going from Zarahemla to
the head of Sidon to intercept the Lamanite army returning from capturing
Nephites from the area of Ammonihah, “they could have waded, swam, or used
boats. They could have even constructed a bridge” (p. 41).

There are many more “new things”
that are “revealed” by this new way of looking through the lenses of Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery, provided, of course, that we look through the lenses
the way that Neville does. [Of course, I don’t claim
any of these listed items are revelation. These are simply conclusions that
follow from the two pins in the map that I accept as revelation. That’s why we
canonize scriptures.] His book is clearly not “clarification revelation”
but semantic antics and elastic Chiastics. When the Mississippi River can at
once be the river Sidon, the west sea, the east sea, and the narrow strip of
wilderness—according to his “plausible interpretation” of the text of the Book
of Mormon—then something is askew with this new “revelation” from Oliver
Cowdery and Jonathan Neville. [Ha-ha, calm down, Joe. J The
preceding sentence indicates that Joe either has not read carefully or is
intentionally misleading his readers here. I’ll assume Joe just didn’t read
carefully.] However,
Neville did set up his own “cya” defense by implying that his book was not
revelation. At page xi, he says, “I frame each element as a proposal or
plausible interpretation. Feel free to agree or disagree. . . . Well-informed
decisions tend to be better than uninformed decisions.”

Not only do I feel free to
disagree but also I am compelled to
disagree strongly with his new light of “plausible interpretive revelation.” [This is Joe’s term, not mine. I don’t think that term is
even coherent. Revelation is not “plausible” or “implausible.” If that’s how
we’re supposed to interpret the scriptures, why would we canonize them?] I
submit that Zarahemla being located west of the Mississippi, and hence west of
the west sea and across from Nauvoo, and that the Mississippi River being the
river Sidon and the west sea are totally wrong and impossible if we stick to
the literal text of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon describes nothing
west of the west sea except more water, unless of course a sea is not a sea but
is a river, the Mississippi. On page 164 (referring to Alma 27:22), Neville
states, “The text changes the normal usage here; instead of a river, the people
refer to the sea: ‘on the east by the sea.’” Incredible! But Neville has to
twist meanings like this to justify the North American setting. I hope to make
readers of this article and of the Book of Mormon better informed so they will
be better able to see through the semantic and chiastic smokescreen created in Neville’s
book, Moroni’s America. [It would help Joe’s readers if they can distinguish between Joe’s
own interpretation and what I actually wrote. Coining a phrase such as
“plausible interpretive revelation” is hardly illuminating.]

In responding to Neville’s book,
subtitled The North American Setting for
the Book of Mormon, I will not be doing so under the “light of the 1842 Times and Seasons articles” as claimed
by Neville. I have never maintained that these articles are the basis of the New
World geography of the Book of Mormon being located in Central America. [Fair enough, but if so, then Joe is in a minority among Meso
proponents.] Rather, they are only indicators of what Joseph Smith
probably believed prior to his death because he knew of them and because he
never publicly or officially rejected of corrected those statements. [This inference is not supported by any actual evidence; why
require Joseph to specifically reject or correct anonymous statements he had
nothing to do with in the first place, that were far from his areas of focus,
and that no one could have taken seriously anyway (except 20th
century Meso scholars)?] The most important issue is, therefore, whether
Joseph Smith—or any President of the Church thereafter—has received, by
revelation, knowledge of the location of the geography of the Book of Mormon.
If it is by revelation, then there should be no disagreement, at least for the
main body of the Church, including its entire leadership. [I agree with this.] If the Prophet and the Quorum of
the Twelve cannot declare that Joseph Smith or any other prophet has received a
definitive revelation about the location of the Book of Mormon, then such
revelation has not happened. [I don’t follow this. This
is a strange requirement to impose on Church leaders. First, though, consider
that Oliver Cowdery was the Assistant President of the Church when he wrote
Letter VII. Joseph was the President when he assisted and had the letter copied
into his own history as part of his story. To retroactively reject their clear
statement because they didn’t claim a separate revelation on the question is
irrational. Second, Oliver told several people about the visit to Mormon’s
record repository in the hill. Brigham Young related it in Journal of
Discourses specifically so it would not be forgotten. Why impose a requirement
of a formal recorded revelation on Joseph and Oliver when they had visited the
very place Mormon mentioned in Mormon 6:6? Third, we can agree that the Prophet
and Q12 have not officially declared that Cumorah is in New York, but JFS, as
President of Q12, reaffirmed it. If President Nelson reaffirmed it today, would
Joe and the other Meso advocates continue to reject it? Why should Church
leaders reiterate what a previous President of the Q12 has said?]

The very facts of the existence
of Neville’s books, of the many Central American books and theories, and of
over a hundred other models and theories of its geography are evidence that its
geography has never been revealed, and it surely is not revealed by the Lord in
Neville’s books. [Of course. The only thing that was
established during Joseph’s lifetime was the site of Cumorah. From there, any
number of possibilities exist, ranging from a local New York setting, all the
way to a hemispheric model. The only possibility excluded is that Cumorah is
anywhere but in New York.] Let us not confuse revelation from the Lord
through proper channels with personal insights, beliefs, and discoveries. It is
the light of the Book of Mormon that first, last, and always must shine
through. The Book of Mormon sheds its own light on its own geography. Let us
stick to the plain meaning of the words of the text. [This
is an ironic statement from Joe. I made it plain I framed each element as a
proposal or plausible interpretation. Joe’s the one who coined the phrase
“plausible interpretive revelation.” So Joe is really arguing with himself
here.]

Rather than address every issue
raised by Neville in his book, I will concentrate on the following issues:

1.Definitions
of such words as “sea,” “wilderness,” and “river,” as used by Nephi and
confirmed by known historical areas as described within the Book of Mormon,
should be the basis for how these words are used throughout the Book of Mormon.

2.Was
the location of the geography of the Book of Mormon received by revelation to
the Prophet Joseph Smith, or were his statements based on his beliefs at the
time?

3.Does
the text of the Book of Mormon control and trump all other geographical statements?

4.How
does a reader determine the location of the city of Zarahemla from the text of
the Book of Mormon? Or is it possible for a reader to know for certain where
the city of Zarahemla could not have
been located?

5.Was
the Mississippi River fordable on foot (a) between Nauvoo, Illinois and
Montrose, Iowa? (b) near its head—the confluence of the Ohio with the
Mississippi, according to Neville, as required by Alma 43 and 44? and (c) “away
up beyond Manti” as discussed in Alma 16:6–7?

6.Was the narrow strip of wilderness that extended “from the east sea to the west sea” a
series of rivers—the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers? Or was it a series
of mountains and other terrestrial features?[1]

Joseph
Smith stated (1) that the Book of Mormon “was the most correct of any book on
earth”[iv][just to be clear, although I agree with the idea, this is
actually Wilford Woodruff’s summary of a day’s teachings, not a direct
quotation, and of course the statement doesn’t state or imply that the Book of
Mormon is perfect, as even Moroni acknowledged.] and (2) “that it says
what it means and means what it says.” [v][The footnote gives an obscure reference, but presumably it
refers to the essay titled “Latter Day Saints,” attributed to Joseph Smith,
which includes this sentence: “Believing the Bible to say what it means and
mean what it says.”] Surely it was not translated by revelation so that
only “scholars” could understand it. [Definitely! Yet
Joe participated in the conclave I call the Council of Springville, which was
convened so scholars could interpret the difficult passages.] It
shouldn’t take intricate chiastic structures—although they are fascinating and
helpful—to understand it. It was translated into the English language by Joseph
Smith so that unsophisticated readers could understand it. [Hmm, how many “unsophisticated readers” can understand
Isaiah? Or even the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon? It is the Hebrew
parallelisms that are evidence of its antiquity. That, and the lack of
punctuation in the original text. The addition of punctuation and the division
into chapter and verse, have caused lots of confusion about meaning. The Hebrew
parallel structure is clearer, actually.]

Thus,
the Book of Mormon, including its geography, should be able to be understood by
even the ordinary, reasonable reader by simply (1) understanding the words used
in the Book of Mormon in their most common and ordinary way—e.g., a sea is a
sea not a river, [Joe is now arguing that the King
James Version (KJV) is not understandable, yet the Book of Mormon translation
uses the KJV] and (2) by not making unreliable and unsupportable
assumptions—like the Mississippi River is the river Sidon, Lehi landed in South
America, the intended interpretation of Alma 22:32 is “from the east sea to the
west sea,” or the hill Cumorah in upstate new York is the same hill as the
Jaredite hill Ramah—and then, come hell or high water, making all other
geographic indicators in the Book of Mormon fit those predetermined assumptions.
[This is a fascinating insight into Joe’s approach.
Oliver’s Letter VII statement of fact about Cumorah and Ramah is, according to
Joe, merely an “unreliable and unsupportable assumption.” This is what
anti-Mormons say about everything Oliver wrote.]

The
Book of Mormon contains no deceptions. Mormon intended to mislead no one. He
particularly desired his future Lamanite brethren to understand it. Mormon,
Moroni, and Joseph Smith used words and language we can all understand. [True, just like the King James Version of the Bible.
Everyone understands that perfectly. No need to analyze the text at all. Except
if that’s the case, why don’t even the members of the Meso clubs BMAF and AAF
agree with one another? Not to mention the untold Christian denominations that
rely on the KJV.]

I. Defnitions within the Book of Mormon Itself

Because there are so many
definitions and alternate definitions of words in the various dictionaries and because
the difficult process of translating from one language to another is so fraught
with issues in establishing a consistent meaning for words and phrases, I
propose that the most reasonable method of identifying how Mormon, Nephi,
Moroni, and other writers of the Book of Mormon used various words and phrases
can best be obtained from seeing how these words and phrases were used within
the context of a known historical background. [Sounds
good.]

The
most logical “known historical background” is associated with Lehi and his
followers in the Old World. For example, Book of Mormon analysts [I think Joe means “scholars” such as those who participated
in the Council of Springville, including Joe] have no disputations about
Nephi’s meanings in 1 Nephi of such terms as “up,” “down,” “river,” “wilderness,”
“sea,” “Bountiful,” “east,” “mountains,” etc. Readers can compare those meanings
with the known geographical area from Jerusalem to the Red Sea and then down
the east side of the Red Sea to Nahom and then east to the land Bountiful. The
meanings of such terms in 1 Nephi will then give us indications of how those
terms should be understood throughout the Book of Mormon. (All references in
this section refer to 1 Nephi.) [Wait. I thought we
were going to see how the words and phrases were used within the context of a
known historical background, which I thought mean the KJV. Certainly the Old
Testament at least, from Nephi’s perspective, but also the New Testament, from
Joseph’s. After all, both are quoted extensively in the text. Now we’re
limiting the meaning of the terms to how certain terms were used by Nephi on
the Arabian peninsula? ]

Up/Down: Unless
specifically identified otherwise, these words are always used in terms of
elevation—for example, “up” to Jerusalem, elevation 2,200 feet, and “down” to
the valley of Lemuel, near sea level (2:5, 3:9, 4:1). Thus, the Book of Mormon
never indicates that “up” or “down” ever followed the flow of a river as
proposed by Neville (pp. 39–40). [I agree that up or
down refers to elevation; my point in the book is that over undulating terrain,
the only way you can determine if you’re going up or down is by reference to
running water. There are no mountains mentioned in the entire book of Alma, for
example; how were people to know if they were going up or down except by
reference to water?]

Wilderness: “Wilderness” is used to refer to areas
that included deserts, forests, and mountains. Lehi departed from Jerusalem “into the wilderness” and “traveled in the wilderness in the borders
which are nearer the Red Sea” (see 2:4–5). He even lived in the wilderness
(7:5). Thus, “wilderness” is not defined as an uninhabited river as claimed by
Neville (p. 52). The area between Jerusalem and Bountiful is an area that
includes mostly mountains, even though the word “mountain” is used only one
time until Bountiful. Historically, this entire area was sparsely inhabited
with isolated settlements along the incense trail. “Wilderness” is never used
to refer to a river as claimed by Neville (p. 19), although Lehi and his
followers camped by the river Laman and crossed it on foot during their journey
in the wilderness (16:12). [I pointed out in the book
that the river I propose as the narrow strip of wilderness—the Ohio
River—frequently runs dry in late summer (before dams/dikes) and therefore was
a “strip of wilderness” exactly as described in the text; i.e., an uninhabited
area. I’m not sure how they could have referred to a river as wilderness in the
Arabian Peninsula; it would be like labeling a strip of water in the middle of
the ocean as a river. When the entire area is a wilderness, you don’t have a
narrow strip. But in North America along the Ohio River, the land is lush and
productive—except for the riverbeds whether they are dry or full of water.]

Journey: “Journey” principally is associated
with traveling on foot on land, and that is how it is used in describing Lehi’s
“journey” in the wilderness from Jerusalem to land Bountiful. [The word merely means to travel. It originally meant a day’s
travel, coming from the Old French, derived from Latin. It has nothing to do
with land or water; you can “journey” from London to Paris, which involves
crossing the English Channel. Obviously if you’re crossing the Arabian
Peninsula, you’re not going to journey by water. But Paul took a journey Rome
by boat (Romans 1:10), which is how he traveled to Greece as well, and he
planned a journey into Spain (Romans 15:24).]

Travel: “Travel” means foot travel unless
otherwise indicated. There is never an indication in the Book of Mormon that the
Nephites or the Lamanites or any other –ites ever traveled by boat up or down a
stream or river. [Several references to shipping, even
though Mormon mentioned he couldn’t give an account of their shipping and their
building of ships. I infer he took it for granted; i.e., he assumed everyone
would know people traveled by rivers, as all ancient societies have.]

Sojourn: “Sojourn” means
temporary residences between travels. Therefore, when the Book of Mormon says, “And thus . . . we did sojourn in the
wilderness for the space of many years, yea even eight years in the wilderness”
(17:3–4), it is talking about the time from Jerusalem when they first entered
into the wilderness and sojourned to Bountiful (16:6, 13, 17, 33, and 17:1).

Sea: “Sea” is always used only in its
primary definitional sense—a large body of sea water of ocean level and
connected to an ocean. It is never confused with or identified as a river or a
lake (18:8, 17:48, 17:5, 16:14, 2:5). [Of course, this
is circular reasoning; if Mormon used the term to describe a mighty river, then
he didn’t use it only for an ocean-level body of sea water. If KJV translates
the Hebrew term for mighty river as sea,
why couldn’t Joseph Smith? Nowhere does the text connect a “sea” with an “ocean”
or say anything about sea water. I thought we were going to stick with the text.]

Seashore: “Seashore” always
has reference to a sea and never a river or lake (17:6). For example, the
followers of Lehi in the Old World did not dwell by the seashore of river Laman
but “by the side of a river” (2:6). [So they were along a river and not at the sea. Not sure how
this is relevant.]

Shore: “Shore”
provides references to the Red Sea and not to a river or a lake (2:5). [Of course, the KJV refers to the shore of the Sea of
Galilee, and in acts 27:39, “they discovered a certain creek with a shore.”]

River: “River” refers to running water in a
defined streambed that empties into a sea, such as the river of Laman (2:8–9).
It is never referred to as a wilderness. However, sometimes it refers to being
located within a landed wilderness. [Of course, Isaiah
and Nephi refer to rivers being a wilderness (2 Ne. 7:2) and men going over dry
shod (2 Nephi 21:15). If we think Nephi quoted relevant Isaiah verses, then why
couldn’t these apply?]

East/eastward: “East” and “eastward” are always
used as correct cardinal directions (17:1, 16:13). Therefore, Lehi and his
followers knew and followed cardinal directions. [Okay,
but the Meso rationale about a different system is not entirely irrational.]

Bountiful: “Bountiful” is described as a
relatively small area bordering a sea with fertile lands between the sea and
nearby mountains, which area contains fruit, honey, trees, and iron ore
(17:5–16, 18:6). [Yes, but is it a proper noun or a
description? The text doesn’t say. It could be either or both.]

Mountain: “Mountain” is used in its primary sense
as in general, a mountain denotes an elevation higher and larger than
a hill (16:30, 18:3, 17:7). The trail Lehi followed in the Old World is mostly within
very large mountainous terrains. [Unless he

Near: “Near” means very close by (4:7).

All: “All” means the
sum total of the specified unit as in “all the house of Ishmael” (7:22).

Borders: “Borders” means
the edge of a described area (1:2–5, 1:2–8) and not like the dividing line
between countries. [In the Old Testament, numerous
borders are described, including the Jordan River, and Sidon in the north.]

The following is a synopsis of
these terms as they are used by Nephi in 1 Nephi while they were in the Old
World. Hopefully, it will help readers have a feeling for how these words are
used throughout the Book of Mormon. Again, primary points of analysis here
suggest plainly that the above words are clearly understood as they apply to
the Old World. Clearly, they should have the same meanings when Lehi and his
followers arrive in the New World: [Whenever you see
the terms “plainly” or “clearly,” you know you’re reading a basic logical thinking
error, because the argument relies solely on the author’s own definition of
terms.]

Lehi took
nothing with him save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and
departed into the wilderness. He came down by the borders near the shore of the
Red Sea, and he traveled in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea. When he
had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by
the side of a river of water. He called the name of the river, Laman, and it
emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth
thereof. Father saw that the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea.
Nephi and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness with our tents to go
up to the land of Jerusalem. I went forth and as I came near unto the house of
Laban I beheld; he was drunken with wine. We took the plates of brass and the
servant of Laban and departed into the wilderness and journeyed unto the tent
of our father. The Lord did soften the heart of Ishmael, and also his
household, insomuch that they took their journey with us down into the
wilderness to the tent of our father. And all the house of Ishmael had come
down unto the tent of my father.

We did take our
tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman. We traveled for
the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction. After we had
traveled for the space of many days, we did pitch our tents for the space of a
time that we might again rest ourselves and obtain food for our families. I did
go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions which
were given upon the ball. We did again take our journey, traveling nearly the
same course as in the beginning, and after we had traveled for the space of
many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a
time. Ishmael died, and was buried in the place called Nahom.

We did again
take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly east-ward from
that time forth, and we did travel and wade through much affliction in the
wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness.

And thus . . . we
did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight [total] years in the wilderness. And we did come to
the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild
honey. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which being
interpreted, is many waters. And we did pitch our tents by the seashore. After
I, Nephi, had been in the land Bountiful for the space of many days, the voice
of the Lord came unto me saying: Arise and get thee into the mountain. I arose
and went up into the mountain. And the Lord told me whither I should go to find
ore that I might make tools. And they were angry with me and were desirous to
throw me into the depths of the sea. (Synthesized from 1 Nephi.)

The entire area from Jerusalem to
Bountiful was considered the wilderness in which they sojourned for the space
of eight years. It consisted of pockets of dwelling places, mountains, rivers,
and deserts, all of which can be confirmed when readers look at Google Earth of
this area. [Of course, Joe here assumes he knows where
Lehi traveled. Had he traveled along the coast, or inland of the mountains, where
the Frankincense trail is, he would not be traveling near mountains but not
through them.]

Neville claims that because no
mention of mountains is made in the New World until in Helaman—and then
mountainous references pertained only to the Gadianton robbers—there were no
large mountains where the Nephites lived:

The
absence of mountains suggests that when we’re searching for the setting of the
Book of Mormon, we would look not for terrain dominated by tall, steep
mountains, but instead for a place characterized by hills and rivers and
valleys, with ample flat area suitable for growing crops. (p. 209)

It does not follow that because
the word “mountain” was not mentioned that that meant there were no mountains
or that they were only large hills. [True, as far as it
goes; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But in the context, the
failure to mention mountains is significant. Notice that Nephi describes the
entire journey from crossing the river Laman to Bountiful in only 37 verses (of
which many have to do with him breaking the bow). Yet even in these 35 verses,
he refers to mountains three times. Mountains are also significant in the
Isaiah quotations. But in the New World, he never once mentions mountains.
Nobody does in Mosiah all the way to the end of Alma, even though describe
other natural features.] The word “mountain” is used only once in the
sojourning of Lehi from Jerusalem to Bountiful, [but
twice when they get to Bountiful] and then there is no indication of its
size:

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did go
forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions which were
given upon the ball. (1 Nephi 16:30)

And yet the entire area from
Jerusalem to and including Bountiful was totally involved with mountains. [Not if you follow the frankincense trail through the
desert.] These were no small mountains like at Adam-ondi-Ahmon
(elevation 270 feet; see p. 210). These were steep, tall, and rugged mountains.
It was such a treacherous mountainous terrain that it required the Liahona to
guide them through it. [Or to guide them through the
desert and its blowing sands, which makes more sense.] Nahom was at an
elevation of over 5,000 feet, and there were mountains in the area in excess of
7,000 feet. This mountainous terrain is never referred to by Nephi—with the one
exception. Does that mean it was not mountainous or that they were only large
hills along a river? Of course not! [A good example of
the fallacy of the “plainly” argument—and the exclamation point doesn’t make it
any stronger an argument. It’s pure guesswork that Lehi traveled through the
mountains.]

The mountains and hills referred
to in Helaman where the Gadianton robbers lived and from which they sallied
forth were more likely similar to those along Lehi’s route to Bountiful. [More likely similar?
The author in Helaman had never been to the Arabian peninsula. He had no basis
for comparison. To people living in the Midwest, the mountains of
Adam-ondi-Ahman are mountains. It’s a relative term, on a continuum with
hills.] These were the mountains located between the land of Zarahemla
and the land of Nephi within the narrow strip of wilderness from where the robbers
inflicted harm to both the Lamanites and Nephites as they sallied forth to take
over the cities and lands of Nephi and Zarahemla. [Here’s a fascinating interpolation. The
“narrow strip of wilderness” is mentioned exactly once in the text, in Alma 22.
It is never mentioned in connection with the robbers. Now does the text say the
mountains separated the land of Zarahemla from the land of Nephi. Joe is just
making this up.]

Here are some photos of the mountainous
terrain along the route from Jerusalem to Bountiful, Oman:

Notice
the descriptive language used in 3 Nephi 4:1 as Lehi and his followers coped
with the mountainous terrain suggested by the preceding photos: [I don’t see anything in these photos that compares with the
Americas except maybe the Chilean mountains. I don’t know how Joe explains how
anyone could “sally forth” out of mountains such as these. Descending such
mountains can hardly be characterized as a “brief outbreak” or “an action of
rushing.”]

And it came to pass that in the
latter end of the eighteenth year those armies
of robbers had prepared for battle, and began to come down and to sally
forth from the hills, and out of the
mountains, and the wilderness, and
their strongholds, and their secret
places, and began to take possession of the lands, both which were in the land
south [of the narrow strip of wilderness] and which were in the land north [of the
narrow strip of wilderness], and began to
take possession of all the lands
which had been deserted by the Nephites, [as well as the Lamanites (see 3
Nephi 3:14 and 3 Nephi 6:2)] and the
cities which had been left desolate. (Emphasis added.)

Now notice how Neville describes that
scene:

These
mountains are habitable; the robbers dwell “upon” them in hiding places. Yet
they are in close proximity to the Nephite communities. The robbers can “sally
forth” out of them, a term that means a sudden rushing out, as from a hiding
place. . . These mountains would have to be in proximity to rivers, yet also in
an area that supports extensive agriculture. . . The description in the text
implies something more like “large hills” than “the largest eminences on the globe.”
(See p. 210.)

[Exactly. Unlike the
mountains in Joe’s photos, those in the text were habitable. The term “sally
forth” precludes any kind of tall, massive mountains like those Joe describes.
Additional synonyms for “sally forth” include a jaunt, an outburst, a sortie. These are not what an army does from
such huge mountains.]

These robbers were not “river
pirates” hiding in caves (p. 210). These were not hills along the banks of a
river but were large areas where armies had been training and living. [If we’re sticking with the text, the text does not say they
were not along a river, and does not say they were “large areas where armies
had been training.” The text does not say how many robbers there were.]

And there were so many of the robber
armies that they were able to occupy the lands and the cities of the Nephites
and the Lamanites (3 Nephi 3:14) [not sure what verse
Joe meant to cite here, but v. 14 doesn’t say or imply this.] on both
sides of the narrow strip of wilderness from whence the robbers had come (3
Nephi 3:17). [not sure what verse Joe meant to cite
here, but v. 17 doesn’t say or imply this. Of course, nothing in 3 Nephi or
Helaman mentions the narrow strip of wilderness.] These events were not
happening from the Ohio/narrow-strip-of-water wilderness to Chattanooga,
Tennessee—two hundred miles south and across the Tennessee River—to take over
the city of Nephi! Nor were the robbers sallying forth from the
Ohio—northwestward 250 miles—to take over the city of Zarahemla/Montrose! How
much more illogical and invalid could Neville’s descriptions be worded? [ha-ha, yeah, had I written anything of the sort, I’d agree
with Joe. But since it is Joe making up the narrow strip of wilderness in these
verses, and since I’ve stuck with the text, I can’t respond to whatever it is
Joe is imagining here.]

These mountains, first mentioned in Helaman
11:25 in the year 13 BC, were the same mountains mentioned after the
destruction at Christ’s crucifixion. [This is
interesting because no mountains are mentioned after the destruction.] That
being the case, then they must have been the same mountains between the lands
Zarahemla/Nephi that must have existed at the time when Mosiah I and those who
followed him traveled through when they crossed the narrow strip of wilderness
from Nephi and went down to the land of Zarahemla about 200 BC: [This is a series of cascading assumptions that have no basis
in the text.]

And
it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they
departed out of the land into the [narrow strip of] wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and
they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished
continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm,
through the [narrow strip of] wilderness
until they came down into the land
which is called the land of Zarahemla. (Omni 1:13; emphasis added)

[Those brackets are not mine, but Joe’s. He retranslates the text
often, which is why he is confused when I stick with the actual text.]

They
were not sailing down the Ohio River as Neville would have us believe:

When Mosiah left the land of Nephi, he went “down”
into the land of Zarahemla. (Omni 1:13) This means he went down river. Zeniff
came “up” out of the land of Zarahemla; i.e., he went upstream. (Mosiah7:9) (p.
40)

That
is not what the text says. [I didn’t quote the text. I
explained my interpretation that the only way you know you’re going up or down
is by reference to running water.] Never are there any indications or
questions in the New World about the use of these terms that are explained at
the first of this section. For example, never is a sea confused with a river. A
river is never deemed the major portion of a wilderness. The only means of travel
or journeying mentioned was by foot. [I’ve already
addressed this circular reasoning in the definition phase.] The New
World Book of Mormon people generally never followed a river or used a river as
the primary means of transportation—at least as far as described in the Book of
Mormon itself. They knew and followed cardinal directions. [Actually, they rarely followed cardinal directions. They
refer to “northward” and “southward,” just like the Old Testament. These are
vague descriptions, of course; no one would know where to go if you told
him/her to go “northward.” Such general directions make sense, though, when
you’re referring to river traffic.] When Mosiah went down out of the
wilderness into Zarahemla, he came down out of the same mountains that were
later occupied by the Gadianton robbers. [Pure
fabrication.] In the interest of honesty and full disclosure to his
brethren, Mormon and Moroni would have told their readers of any differences in
meaning of these and other words than those that the ordinary reader would
understand. There is no deception in the Book of Mormon. [I agree. But it is misleading to add terms to the text that
are not there.]

II.
Joseph Smith’s Understanding of the Geography of the Book of Mormon

The geography of the Book of
Mormon began September 21, 1823, when the Angel Moroni appeared to seventeen-year-old
Joseph Smith and told him that the gold plates contained a history of “former
inhabitants of this continent.”

There is no question but that by 1830,
Joseph Smith and most members considered the term “this continent” to mean
North and South America. [The “plainly” fallacy
repeated. Here, it’s worse because no evidence is even offered.] The
belief was that the land southward described in the Book of Mormon was South
America; the narrow neck of land was the Isthmus of Panama; and the Jaredite
land northward was North America, with the hill “Ramah” located near Joseph’s
home—which later became known as the Hill Cumorah. [This
was the belief of Orson Pratt and…. Not sure who else. Maybe Parley? Who else?]
Joseph Smith never stated or maintained that this hemispheric understanding
of the geography of the Book of Mormon was received by him by revelation. He
never said that Moroni told him that Panama was the narrow neck of land or, for
that matter, that the hill “Cumorah” was the same hill where the Jaredites were
destroyed. [First, notice the fallacy here that, at
most, Joe can say there are no extant records of Joseph stating a hemispheric
understanding of the term “this continent.” But we know there were early
records we don’t have, and no one took verbatim notes of everything Joseph
said. Even the quotation Joe started this paper with—the “most correct book”
quotation—is merely a summary of a days’ worth of instruction. Second, we don’t
know that Joseph never told Oliver Cowdery that Moroni explained—or showed in a
vision—that the New York hill was both Cumorah and Ramah. Most of the
historical details in Oliver’s 8 letters could only have come from Joseph, and
many of the details are unique to these letters; i.e., these letters are the
only evidence we have of these events. If Joe’s argument is that we can only
rely on what Joseph wrote in his own handwriting, we have a much bigger problem
than what Oliver wrote.]

In his book, Letter VII,[vi] Neville
quotes the entire letter from Oliver Cowdery, which is the basis for the initial
belief by Joseph Smith and others that the Hill Cumorah in upstate New York was
the area of the last battles of the Nephites and Lamanites and also of the Jaredites.
[This is quite a claim, but it is contradicted by
historical evidence. Joseph’s mother said Joseph referred to the hill as
Cumorah even before he got the plates. Oliver referred to it as Cumorah during
his 1830-31 missionary journey to the Lamanites. David Whitmer heard the term
Cumorah before the Book of Mormon was even completely translated. So Oliver’s
1835 letter can hardly be the “basis for the initial belief by Joseph Smith”
about Cumorah.] Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Moroni told him this
fact. He did not claim that Moroni told Joseph Smith this fact either. Cowdery’s
statements were clearly those that he personally believed in, and they were
extrapolated from his understanding of his reading of the Book of Mormon—but not
by revelation. [The “plainly” fallacy arises again.
Oliver stated it was a fact that the battles took place in the valley west of
Cumorah. He didn’t explain how he knew, but he did say Joseph helped him write
this history. He was the Assistant President of the Church at the time. He’d
been in the presence of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Moroni, and
others. In a few months, he would be present when Moses, Elijah, Elias, and the
Savior Himself appeared in the temple. But more relevant to this particular
situation, he and Joseph had been in Mormon’s record repository in the hill. It
wasn’t a question about needing a revelation.] In fact, Oliver Cowdery
even declared that there was no current revelation about the Hill Cumorah being
the place of those final battles:

Here
may be seen, where once sunk to nought the pride and strength of two mighty
nations, and here may be contemplated in solitude, while nothing but the faithful record of Mormon and Moroni is now extant to
inform us of the fact, scenes of misery and distress. (See page 64 of
Neville’s Letter VI: Oliver Cowdery’s
Message to the World about the Hill Cumorah; emphasis added.)

[Who else could inform
us of the fact besides Mormon and Moroni? They were the only two who kept the
record. There were no other survivors besides Moroni.]

There is no claim to revelation
here. Cowdery is clearly relying on his reading of the record and not on
statements from Moroni or revelation from the Lord. [I
need to change the description of the fallacy from “plainly” to “clearly,”
since that’s the term Joe is using more frequently. Oliver is emphasizing that
only Mormon and Moroni could have informed us of the fact that here may be seen, and here may be contemplated. Here is the hill Cumorah in New York.] And
until about 1842, Joseph assented to the theory that the hill in upstate New
York was the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph even proposed
various possible Book of Mormon locations in conformity with this belief, most
of which are set out in Moroni’s America.
[Even under Joe’s theory that Joseph knew nothing,
Joseph wasn’t assenting to a theory; he assented to what Oliver expressed
stated was a fact. But more importantly, Joseph helped Oliver write these
letters. He had them copied into his own history. And as I mentioned, the other
historical evidence shows that Joseph knew about Cumorah in New York even
before the Book of Mormon was published.]

The foundational “pin” that I
propose and adhere to is that if something is received by revelation from the
Lord, then it was, and still is, true and will be supported by our current Prophet
in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And because the Isthmus of
Panama has been proven that it could not have been the narrow neck of land—and
Neville and Meldrum agree with this proposition—then Joseph Smith’s initial
beliefs about the geography of the Book of Mormon were clearly not by
revelation, regardless of any statements to the contrary made by anyone. [I don’t follow this at all. Joseph never said or implied
that Panama was the narrow neck of land.] This conclusion, of course,
must also include all geographical statements made by Oliver Cowdery, even if
he was quoting the Prophet Joseph Smith himself.

The questions that must be
answered are therefore the following: (1) Did Joseph Smith ever receive
revelation that Panama was, or was not, the narrow neck of land? If so, when
and where? (2) Did he ever receive revelation that Zarahemla was located in
Guatemala? If so, when and where? (3) Did he ever receive revelation that the
river Sidon was the Mississippi River? Or the river Grijalva? Or the river
Usumacinta? If so, when and where? Did he ever receive revelation that the
ancient city of Zarahemla was located near Montrose, Iowa? or Guatemala City(Kaminaljuyu)? or that the Hill Cumorah in New York
was the same hill where the last battles of the Jaredites and Nephites/Lamanites
were fought? If so, when and where?

[The test Joe establishes
here would invalidate most of what Joseph Smith taught. We don’t even know when
and where the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored. We don’t know when and where
Joseph learned much, and may most, of the things he taught, including
everything regarding the temple. Joe knows what Joseph’s mother said about
Cumorah, as well as what David Whitmer said, both of which predated the
publication of the Book of Mormon. And as I have mentioned already, Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery visited Mormon’s record repository in the New York
hill, so what more revelation would they need?]

Statements of belief are one
thing. Revelation from the Lord through His authorized prophet is another.

Neville so much as admits on
pages 321–323 that revelation as to the geography of the Book of Mormon has not
been received. He cites statements from General Authorities as follows:

1.According
to Anthony W. Ivins, “The Church says we are just waiting until we discover the
truth” [about the geography of the Book of Mormon].[vii]

2.James
E. Talmage said, “I encourage and recommend all possible investigation,
comparison and research [about Book of Mormon geography] . . . But our brethren
who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must
speak with caution and not declare as
demonstrated truths points that are not really proved.”[viii]

3.John
A. Widtsoe added, “Out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet
come a unity of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography.”[ix]

4.Anthony
W. Ivins further declared, “Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City
of Zarahemla? . . . There has never been
anything yet set forth that definitely settles [those questions].”[x]

[Notice that none of
these men questioned the New York setting for Cumorah, which Joseph Fielding
Smith reaffirmed as an Apostle and later as President of the Quorum of the
Twelve. Beyond that one pin in the map, they have remained neutral. But they
are always referring to the future when we will discover the truth and come to
a unity of opinion. IMO, until we recognize the New York Cumorah—which, after
all, is pretty basic—the rest will not happen.]

Until someone on behalf of the First
Presidency of the Church can affirmatively state the answers to New World Book
of Mormon geographic questions—with chapter and verse or by direct revelation
through the current prophet—then it must be concluded that the answers must be
in the negative and, therefore, the Prophet Joseph Smith never received
revelation as to the geography of the Book of Mormon. Had he received such
revelation, then there would be no conflict among believers as there is today. [This paragraph repeats the same logical fallacies Joe has
already stated many times. What more could Joseph have done to establish the
New York setting for Cumorah, for example? His scribe, the man who wrote the
entire Book of Mormon, most of the Book of Moses, and the first detailed
history of the Church, included the details about Cumorah. Oliver was the
Assistant President of the Church at the time. Joseph helped Oliver write the
letters, had his scribe copy them verbatim into his own history, and saw them
published in the Messenger and Advocate, the Gospel Reflector, and the Times
and Seasons. Letter VII was better established through repetition than most of
the formal revelations. Joe makes a good point about conflict among believers,
but not the one he thinks he makes. During Joseph’s lifetime, and during the
lifetime of all of his contemporaries, there was never a doubt that Cumorah was
in New York. The “conflict among believers” came only after RLDS scholars
developed the two-Cumorah theory, and then LDS scholars picked it up and
developed it over the objection of Joseph Fielding Smith. So to the extent
there is “conflict among believers,” it can hardly be blamed on Joseph Smith
not being clear.]

The conclusion follows, therefore,
that all of Joseph Smith’s geographic statements must have been based upon his personal
beliefs at the time the statements were made. What necessarily follows from this
conclusion is that all geographic statements made by anyone, even to the
current date, are based on personal beliefs and not on revelation. [Neither conclusion
follows because the initial premise is false.]

The
Lord has not revealed the geographic location of the events of the Book of Mormon
yet,
undoubtedly for a wise purpose. The only exception to this is Moroni’s
declaration that it took place “on this continent.” [Where
do we first learn of Moroni’s declaration about “this continent?” It is in
Joseph’s 1838 History. But long before that, Oliver Cowdery and W.W. Phelps
were using the phrase to describe the Book of Mormon people. But the first
detailed account of what Moroni told Joseph Smith is in Letter IV, first
published in February 1835. Again, Joseph helped write these letters. Here’s
what Letter IV says: “He [Moroni] then proceeded and gave a general account of
the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigines of this country, and said they were
literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an
enlightened and intelligent people, possessing a cerrect [correct] knowledge of
the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history was written and deposited not
far from that place [Joseph’s home], and that it was our brother's
privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and
translate the same.” So the first explanation of Moroni’s instructions said the
book was a history of the aborigines of this
country, notthis continent.
During the early 1800s, the phrase “this continent” was used both for the North
American continent, primarily meaning the U.S., and the “western continent,” or
North and South America combined. But “this country” has never been used to
refer to all of North and South America. Besides, Moroni told Joseph the record
was “written and deposited” not far from his home. He didn’t say it was written
thousands of miles away and then hauled up to the hill where it was deposited.
If we’re going to use the “clearly” argument, it’s difficult to get much more
clear than this.]

The prophecy about the new
Jerusalem being located upon this land is not a geographical statement about
where the Book of Mormon events took place but a prophecy about the future
location of the New Jerusalem upon this continent. [That’s
one interpretation, but everyone can decide whether that interpretation makes
more sense than what Ether wrote and what Christ said when he visited the
people after his resurrection.]

III. Does the Text Control All Conflicting
Geographic Statements?

One objective of the response to
that question is to suggest that all writers and students of the Book of Mormon
interested in this subject should study the Book of Mormon without reliance on
any person’s statements or beliefs in its geography and then should rely
exclusively on the text and any corroborating archaeological, geographical, and
geological evidence. [I can’t follow this statement.
Let’s get the response to the question before determining what the objectives
are. If this is one objective, what are the others?]

Even Rod Meldrum and Bruce Porter
have stated the following:

·“Anything
that Church authorities—including Joseph Smith—have said about ‘Book of Mormon
geography’ is irrelevant if it conflicts with what is in the Book of Mormon
itself.”[xi]

·“Joseph
Smith stated that the scriptures ‘say what they mean and mean what they say.’”[xii]

In other words, if the Book of
Mormon says “a sea,” it is a sea and not a river or a lake. [This circular reasoning begs the question. We all agree the
text says “sea.” But what is a “sea” in this context? The text draws
extensively from the KJV. How can we not consider the KJV in determining what
the text means? The Book of Mormon authors themselves invoked the Old
Testament, so we should be able to as well. Others can disagree, of course, but
considering the KJV seems fundamental to me.] If it talks about crossing
a river, then it means on foot unless otherwise stated as when Lehi, the
Jaredites, and the Mulekites crossed the sea in vessels. [That’s purely speculation, and not very good speculation at
that.] If it says “mountain,” it is more than just a large hill. [But “a large hill” is a definition of the term “mountain,”
not only in common usage but in the scriptures themselves.] If it says “wilderness,”
it is not a river. If Mormon meant “a river,” he would have said “a river.” [I’ve already gone over this one in detail.]

Some Book of Mormon analysts claim
that Joseph Smith stated that Zarahemla was located at Montrose, Iowa, as
proposed by Neville as one of his “revealed” foundational “pins” (see p. 12).
Other analysts claim that Joseph Smith wrote the articles in the Times and Seasons wherein he stated that
Zarahemla was located in Guatemala. Whether Joseph Smith actually made such
statements is irrelevant because they are geographic in nature and hence not
made by revelation.

[Wait a minute. Now
we’re equating anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons with canonized
scripture?] As
noted, Anthony W. Ivins even declared that the location of the city of
Zarahemla had not been revealed (p. 321). [This is not
what Ivins said. He said “There has never been anything yet set forth that
definitely settles that question.” As I wrote in Moroni’s America, D&C 125
is ambiguous. I used it as the basis for a hypothesis, that’s all. And, it
turns out, it’s an ideal location for Zarahemla that makes the rest of the text
fit. But I’ve never said it “definitely settles that question.”] And Oliver
Cowdery said that “nothing but the faithful record of Mormon and Moroni is
extant to inform us” of these geographic facts.[xiii][Wow. That’s not at all what Oliver said.] The
conflict is irreconcilable. Therefore, the location of the city must be
determined not from any such statements but from the text itself, and then it must
be corroborated by valid physical evidence.

[Look at this logic.
First, Joe paraphrases Elder Ivins to say “the location of the city of
Zarahemla had not been revealed.” But let’s take Joe’s paraphrase as accurate.
Next Joe says that location “must be determined… from the text itself.” But the
text is a revelation, and he just said the location had not been revealed.
Therefore, by Joe’s own logic, the text cannot tell us the location of
Zarahemla.

This is the kind of
nonsense from Mesoamerican advocates that I have to continually deal with.

The whole point of
looking at modern revelation—primarily the D&C, but also the Pearl of Great
Price—is that the Book of Mormon alone does not reveal its setting. And yet, we
have Joe and other Mesoamerican advocates insisting we can’t look at modern
revelation. Instead, they insist we have to look at the text itself—right after
telling us the text doesn’t reveal the setting. It’s difficult to imagine a
more bankrupt framework than this—but all the Mesoamerican advocates do it. And
that’s why this issue isn’t any closer to resolution than it was in the 1920s
when this all started.

Let me say it again.
Joe and all the other Mesoamerican advocates insist that we figure out the Book
of Mormon geography from the text. But they also quote Church leaders to say
the location hasn’t been revealed. If it hasn’t been revealed, then by
definition it isn’t in the Book of Mormon.

This is why I call for
a reassessment of what we do know. Joseph and Oliver said the Hill Cumorah was
in New York. They didn’t claim revelation specifically on that, but why would
they when they had visited Mormon’s repository in that hill? They had
translated and written Mormon 6:6. It doesn’t take additional revelation to
know that if you’ve been in the room that contained the records, and Mormon
said he put them in the Hill Cumorah, that you’ve been in the Hill Cumorah.

The Mesoamerican
argument is like saying that Joseph needed a revelation to know how much the
plates weighed. He hefted them himself; he didn’t need Moroni to tell him how
much they weighed, and he never claimed any such revelation.

In my view, the actual
experience of visiting the repository on multiple occasions is far more
credible than a revelation would have been anyway. As we’ve seen, anti-Mormons
reject claims of revelation, and they reject the divine authenticity of the
Book of Mormon, but they can’t reject the existence of the Book of Mormon. In
like manner, Joseph and Oliver knew from personal experience that the Hill
Cumorah was in New York. It was a reality that they made clear in Letter VII. That’s
why Joseph had Oliver’s Letter VII republished and put in his history, so it
would never be lost. That’s why no one disputed the location of Cumorah while
Joseph was alive, and none of his contemporaries did, either. It was a known
fact, and Brigham Young made a point of putting it in the Journal of Discourses
so the Saints would never forget it.

But LDS scholars have
rejected all of this in favor of the two-Cumorah theory.

I think this is a
critical issue that every member of the Church ought to consider. We can’t have
it both ways. Either Joseph and Oliver were reliable and dependable and correct
about Cumorah, or modern LDS scholars are correct about Cumorah. In which case,
the scholars better explain why we’re supposed to accept everything Oliver
wrote about the early events in Church history except those few paragraphs from
Letter VII.]

If one cannot affirmatively prove
where Zarahemla was located, then does the Book of Mormon text give sufficient
information to preclude specific areas from being Zarahemla? The answer is a
resounding “Yes!” [Do I need to point out that Joe just
said the location has not been revealed, but now he’s claiming it is revealed
in the Book of Mormon?]

IV.
What Are the Parameters, from the Text, to Locate Where the City of Zarahemla
Was Located or Where It Could Not Have Been Located?

According to the Book of Mormon
itself, the city of Zarahemla must be located as follows:

1.West
of the river Sidon (Alma 2:34; Alma 2:15).

2.Northerly
of the city/land of Nephi (Alma 22:24, 27, Alma 50:7).

3.North
of the land of Manti (Alma 17:1).

4.North
of the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:27).

5.Lower
in elevation than the city of Nephi (Mosiah 28:1–7).

[I was fine up to here.
The book of Mosiah never mentions the city of Zarahemla. Unless I’ve missed
something, the city doesn’t show up until Alma 2. There’s a big difference
between the land of Zarahemla and the city of Zarahemla that I usually don’t
see recognized in this type of analysis. I agree that the land of Zarahemla is
lower than the city of Nephi, but whether the city of Zarahemla is higher or
lower, the text doesn’t say.]

6.Northerly
and lower in elevation than Gideon (Alma 62:7).

7.Northerly
and lower than Minon (Alma 2:24).

8.Jershon
and Antionum must be located east of Zarahemla and near the east sea (Alma
27:22, 31:3).

9.Jershon
must be located down in elevation and east from the area near Manti, and east
from Zarahemla (Alma 27:26).

10.The
river Sidon must be fordable on foot near but south of the city of Zarahemla (Alma
2:27–34).

11.The
river Sidon must be easily fordable on foot by large armies near the head of
Sidon, which head must be located south of Manti, and Manti must be located
south of Zarahemla (Alma 43, 44).

Any proposed location for the
city of Zarahemla must conform to all of these conditions. Neville’s model possibly
complies with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and perhaps 6 and 7, but it definitely does not satisfy
the requirements of 8, 9, 10, and 11. [Obviously, I
disagree, as I made clear in the book. But reasonable people can disagree about
all of these passages, and I’m fine with agreeing to disagree. I always welcome
other interpretations, so long as we’re keeping Cumorah in New York.]

V.
Was the Mississippi River Fordable on Foot?

One
of the most significant features of Book of Mormon geography is the river
Sidon. Thus, any model for Book of Mormon geography must reflect a major river.

As
the proponents of the Heartland Model developed their Book of Mormon geography,
they naturally realized the absolute necessity of identifying a river they
could label as the river Sidon. In the setting for the Heartland Model, the territory
from the Great Lakes on the north to the Gulf of Mexico on the south, the only
possible candidate for the river Sidon was the Mississippi River, even though
it flowed from north to south rather than south to north as had been stipulated
for the river Sidon for the previous 170 years or so. [The
idea of a south to north flowing river Sidon is a complete fallacy. It’s based
on a series of assumptions, not on the text itself, as I’m sure Joe is about to
demonstrate.]

Readers
of Neville’s Moroni’s America should
be prepared to deal with issues associated with the Mississippi as the Book of
Mormon’s primary river, the Sidon. Mesoamericanists agree that Book of Mormon
warfare accounts associated with the Sidon “paint a clear picture” of the Sidon
as a relatively shallow river at certain points so the warring parties could
cross it on foot. If the Mississippi is the Sidon, analysts should naturally
expect that it could be crossed on foot during Book of Mormon times. But was
the Mississippi fordable on foot? A careful examination of the Sidon content of
the Book of Mormon in relation to the geography and topography of the
Mississippi answers that question.

A. (No. 10 above) The river Sidon Must Be
Fordable on Foot near, but South of, the City of Zarahemla (Alma 2:27–34).[xiv] (See my article
at endnote 14.)

If the city of Zarahemla was
located near Montrose, Iowa, as proposed by Neville and supported by other
proponents of the Heartland Model, then the Mississippi River—their river
Sidon—must have been fordable on foot across the Des Moines Rapids as claimed
by Rod Meldrum and Jonathan Neville. Meldrum stated the following in 2015:

We
also know that the river between Nauvoo and Zarahemla was shallow enough to
allow crossing on foot both anciently and in the Nauvoo period, making this one
of the most strategic locations in North America.[xv]

Neville agrees with Meldrum’s statement in an email sent to
me on April 21, 2016: “Actually, the rapids here are the first place the River
can be crossed on foot north of the Gulf of Mexico.”

There is no scientific or
historical evidence to support this claim. No one has ever crossed the
Mississippi on foot at the forty-five-hundred-feet-wide Des Moines rapids, [really? How could anyone know that no one has ever crossed
on foot? I could have done it myself not long ago. You can cross in the winter,
as the Saints did, when it is frozen. The average depth (before the dams and
locks) was only about 2.4 feet. That’s average.] including especially
the thousands of soldiers who would have crossed it and fought in it on foot if
the Mississippi were the Sidon. Those outcomes are an impossibility as
explained in my short article entitled, “Crossing the Mississippi River on
Foot,” a copy of which is located at endnote14. If the Mississippi River
between Nauvoo and Montrose, Iowa, was crossable on foot, then why did Brigham
Young not cross it on foot when the Saints left Nauvoo? Why did the Mormon
pioneers always ferry people and wagons across the Mississippi? [If the water is 2 feet deep, you’re not going to want to
wade through it or drive wagons through it. The question is not the preferable
way to cross, but whether it’s possible to cross on foot. It’s undoubtedly
possible. The raids are 11 miles long, and historically, sometimes they were so
shallow even canoes couldn’t navigate over them.] Or why did Brigham
Young and the Saints wait until winter to cross the Mississippi on frozen ice
when they first vacated Nauvoo? [You mean, when they
crossed on foot?]

The Army Corps of Engineers made
the following statement regarding the Des Moines Rapids:

The difficulty of
navigation . . . lies not so much in the shallowness of the channel or the
thread of the current as in its
unevenness of bottom, insufficient width [of the otherwise navigable chains
of channels within the rapids], tortuous
direction, and great velocity. The influence of those features is
exaggerated by cross-surface and under
currents, and by east and west winds.[xvi]

Alma 2 and 3 discuss the battle between the Nephites
and the Amlicite/Lamanite armies and their crossing of the river Sidon several
times on foot. Without a doubt, contrary to what Neville claims on page 151 of Moroni’s America, the Amlicite/Lamanite
army did not “follow the Nephites into” the Mississippi (Sidon) river near
Montrose, Iowa, or near Gideon—or anywhere in the Mississippi River for that
matter (see Alma 2:24–27). At page 151, Neville states the following:

Because the Lamanites
“came upon” the Nephites as the Nephites were crossing the river, the Lamanites
had to be behind the Nephites, following
them into the river (emphasis added).

This
is his personal definition and is not what the scripture states or means. [Ha-ha, everything we write about the scriptures is our own
interpretation. Joe here claims he knows what Mormon meant, but then he offers
a variety of non-exclusive connotations.] The synonyms for “come upon”
as suggested in a thesaurus are “bump into,” “chance,” “encounter,” “meet,” and
“come across,” none of which requires catching up from behind.[xvii]

Neville
continues, “An interesting feature of the Mississippi River is the numerous
islands that form in the channel. Here’s an example.” Neville then presents the
following visual to his readers.

Following
that visual, Neville says the following:

This section of the river, located just
north of my proposed Gideon, is 2.5 miles wide at its widest point. What is now
farmland to the east (right) of the current river is part of the historic
channel, which is over five miles wide.

With this in mind, the description in
Alma of a battle taking place while crossing the [Mississippi] river makes
perfect sense. (See pages 151–53 of Moroni’s
America.)

It makes perfect nonsense. Neville further stated in his
email to me, “The Lamanite/Amlicite army was moving all night,” and “I think
they were on the east side the entire time until the fight on the river.” [I didn’t realize our personal communications would be published
on the Internet. Good to know. And a good warning to anyone who wants to engage
with the Mesoamerican scholars.]

To Jonathan I say, “I am sorry but that analysis is, to use your
word, ‘goofy.’” In this instance, that’s another way of reflecting the adjectives
“unscholarly,” “illogical,” and “invalid” as I attempt to deal with his
Mississippi River comments associated with pages 151–53 of Moroni’s America. Neville talks about the Mesoamericanists taking
scriptures out of context and adding inferences that are not proper and so
forth. However, his analysis in this instance is far more egregious than any he
has cited of the Mesoamericanists. [I’m curious what
criteria Joe uses to measure relative levels of egregiousness, but in this
case, Joe insists these spies crossed the river twice, even though the text
says nothing of the sort.] The Book of Mormon text absolutely does not
say what he claims it means. And the events of Alma 2 absolutely could not have
happened in the Mississippi River. [Okay, maybe I need
to change the “clearly” fallacy to “absolutely” from now on.]

By his own admission in his email to me, he stated that the
Des Moines “rapids
here are the first place the River can be crossed on foot north of the Gulf of
Mexico.” His proposed crossing of the Mississippi River, 2.5 miles north of his
proposed Gideon, is located 23 miles south of the end of the rapids at Keokuk. Therefore,
by his own admission, it is impossible to cross the Mississippi on foot,
regardless of an island in the middle of it. Note also that there has never
been an island or large sandbar in the middle of the Des Moines Rapids. Naturally,
I recommend checking facts before making conclusions. [The Des Moines Rapids
are a permanent feature. The sandbars are periodic, and shift constantly. They
are passable when the water level is low, but not normally. Again, it’s
important to remember that today’s Mississippi is not the same river it was
2,000 years ago because of the dams, locks, and reservoirs. But as recently as July
2012, a 100-mile stretch of the North Platte River in Nebraska dried up. That
same year, the Mississippi was 55 feet below what it had been the year before—and
this is with all the Army Corps of Engineers projects. I’ve met people who said
in their childhood, the Ohio River dried up enough you could walk across it,
and the Ohio River is by far the biggest tributary to the lower Mississippi. So
definitely, I recommend checking facts before making conclusions. J]

Neville further states the following on pages 152–53 (my
comments are bracketed):

As I read this, Alma
was crossing the river when the Lamanites attacked. The battle ensued on the
river; i.e., on one of these islands in the middle of the river [the Book of
Mormon does not say this]. Alma then cleared the west bank of the island [the
Book of Mormon does not say this; it says “the bank which was [located] on the
west of the river Sidon”—not west of an island]so
his people could “have room to cross and contend with the [enemy] on the west
side of the river” (Alma 2:34) This fits the text, which distinuishes beween
“ground, or rather the bank, which was on the west of the river”—the ground
Alma cleared—and the “west side of the river,” where Alma wanted to fight the
battle. [This is Neville’s conjecture but not what the scripture says. How did
the Lamanites/Amlicites ever get to the west bank of the Sidon ahead of Alma in
the first place?] [The text doesn’t say they did.]

The scripture says
“when they had all crossed the river Sidon,” which I take to mean all the
combatants, not just all the Nephites. [Neville might believe this, but the
scripture does not say it.] Alma wisely saw that he had to lure the Lamanites
to the west side; [does not say this] the last thing he would want is the
Lamanites and Amlicites to return where they came from. [Why? Alma would have
wanted them to go home rather than fight them.] Once he got them on the west
bank, he could prevent them from returning home. Instead, he scattered them on
the west and north. [All this is so much conjecture and guessing. Why not stick
to what Joseph’s translation says?] [Joe says this
because I’ve called him out on his own additions to the text—such as the
examples in this analysis we’ve seen already—but I’ve not added anything here.
I’ve made inferences from the text, same as Joe and everyone else who reads the
text. The description is ambiguous, as we would expect in an abridgment.]

Just imagine that! About forty thousand Nephites,
Lamanites—being so numerous they could not be counted (Alma 2:35) [an imaginary number, of course]—and Amlicites all
converging on foot that morning on an island in the middle of the Mississippi
River and Alma “luring” Amlici and the Lamanites to the west side of the
island—which did not exist in the rapids—so he could kill him and toss his body
into the Mississippi River so that he could then climb upon the west bank of
the river. Of course, he then had to help all the other combatant Lamanites out
of the Mississippi River upon the west bank so he could then scatter them to
the west and north to Hermounts! Neville should have written the Book of
Mormon. His version is far more entertaining, and he apparently thinks he knows
a lot more about the “facts” than Mormon did. Neville even knows where Alma
wanted to fight the battle all along, not at Gideon, not on the island, but
upon the west bank of the Mississippi—after they crossed the Mississippi and
the island! The outcomes of Neville’s analysis are reflective of what he told
me in his email about my explanations: “This is just goofy.” [Good to see Joe is emotionally involved here.]

And if Minon were located on the east side of the Mississippi
24 miles south of Gideon as claimed by Neville (153), what about all those
fleeing farmers and their wives, children, and flocks. Did they also cross the 4,500
ft. wide Mississippi? On foot? And maybe even ahead of the Amlicites? Maybe the
scouts did not have to tell Alma about the fleeing people from Minon because
the people were fleeing ahead of the Lamanites and already had passed by Alma’s
camp at Gideon. Why did Alma, instead of racing to beat the Amlicites to the
city of Zarahemla, not stay in Gideon and, while his army was fresh, lay ambush
against the Lamanites? The Amlicites would have been exhausted, having traveled
and fought all the first day, fled twenty-four more miles to Minon by midnight,
and then turned around and, during the night, marched back twenty-four miles to
Gideon, according to Neville. Alma would have had a great tactical and strategic
advantage. Why flee from them? Why not protect the fleeing farmers, wives,
children, and flocks right there? Or another possibility, if the
Lamanites/Amlicites were behind Alma by twenty-four miles, why did Alma not
simply beat them to the river, cross the river, climb the west bank of the
river, and then kill them as they attempted to climb out of the Mississippi?

What a bunch of “goofy” nonsense. Minon was located on the
west side of river Sidon opposite Gideon. Let’s stick to the text of the Book
of Mormon. And let’s stick to reality and the factual and historical
impossibility of crossing the Mississippi on foot. [This
is all entertaining, but the text never says Minon was on the west of the
river. That’s Joe’s interpretation, which he arrives at by adding a
parenthetical that Alma’s spies crossed the river twice and forgot to tell
Alma.]

Therefore, the fact that the
warring armies of Alma 2 were not able to have crossed the Mississippi on foot
at the Des Moines Rapids results in the following outcomes: (1) the Mississippi
River is not the river Sidon and (2) Montrose, Iowa, is not the city of
Zarahemla. [If you want to believe no one has ever crossed
the Mississippi on foot, and that’s the whole case, then we can demonstrate
people have crossed it on foot. Is that really all Joe’s argument boils down
to?]

B. (No. 11 above) The River Sidon Must
Be Easily Fordable on Foot near Its Head as Required by Alma 43–44

[The rest of this paper is a
series of interpretations of the text that I don’t agree with. The entire
effort to attempt to figure out Book of Mormon geography from the text
contradicts Joe’s basic thesis that the geography has never been revealed.

That’s why I consider Joe’s
approach a fool’s errand. I think anyone who tries to determine a setting for
the Book of Mormon without using at least the Cumorah pin in the map is wasting
his/her time.

Without the pins in the map
provided by modern revelation (or additional revelation from the Prophet or
from currently unknown documents), resolution of Book of Mormon geography is
literally impossible. No two people can independently come up with the same
abstract map, simply because the text is too vague.

So not only does Joe’s effort
contradict his own thesis, but it demonstrates the futility of trying to come
up with an abstract map.

I invite anyone who is
interested to consider Joe’s interpretation, as well as mine in Moroni’s
America. I don’t recommend taking Joe’s word for what I’ve written, however; as
I’ve shown, he misrepresents my positions. So read Joe’s, read mine, read
anyone else’s you want. Then make up your own mind.]

[i]. Jonathan Neville, Moroni’s America: The North American Setting
for the Book of Mormon (n.p.: Digital Legend, 2015), xi.

[xi]. Quotation attributed originally to
John L. Sorenson but endorsed by Bruce Porter and Rod Meldrum, Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon
and the United States of America (Mendon, NY: Digital Legend, 2009), 2.

[xiv]. Here is the
text of a short article I wrote entitled “Crossing the Mississippi River on
Foot”:

Just swimming across the Mississippi river is a dangerous and foolish
matter. Many try; few succeed in their foolish attempts to swim the
Mississippi. (See
Patrick B. Anderson, “Many Try, Few Succeed in Foolish Attempts to Swim River,”
August 25, 2012, http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/many-try-few-succeed-in-foolish-attempts-to-swim-river/article_1556282c-ee69-11e1-b895-0019bb2963f4.html
[accessed May 26, 2016].)

In spite of the evidence that few swimmers, even strong ones, can
successfully swim the Mississippi, Rod Meldrum claims that the Mississippi
river could easily have been crossed on foot at the Des Moines Rapids.

Could
the Mississippi River be crossed on foot, and are its banks sufficient to allow
battles to be held on them?

Remember that the Mississippi today is
much wider and deeper than it was in the days before dams, locks and levies,
making it still a large river, but much more shallow. In fact, the river at
Nauvoo was actually shallow enough to cross on foot! This area was called the
Des Moines rapids and riverboats had to off-load their cargo to pass these
rapids prior to the building of locks/dams across the river. The Des Moines Rapids are
known historically to have been less than 2.4 feet deep, making this
the first location upstream from the Gulf of Mexico where the mighty
Mississippi could be crossed on foot! Certainly this would make this area a
strategic location for any ancient civilization, as access to both sides of the
river was easily attainable. (See Rod Meldrum, “The Mississippi; Could It Have
Been River Sidon?” The Firm Foundation, June 4, 2010, http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=14
[accessed May 26, 2016].)

But
not on foot! With the exception of crossing the river when frozen over, there
is no evidence that I can find of anyone, even native Americans, who crossed the Mississippi River on foot.
Certainly access to both sides of the Mississippi river in this area was
never “easily attainable” and then only by boat.The above claim by Meldrum is baseless and without any
corroboration.

For
thousands of years, the mighty Mississippi—because of its phenomenal volume of
water and annual flooding—has changed course many times:

Timeline
of outflow course changes:

c.
5000 BC: The last Ice Age ended; world sea level became what it is now.

It
is common knowledge that almost every year for the past thousands of years
there has been some kind of a flood on the Mississippi, and each flood has left
boulders, trees, sandbars, and debris scattered in the river, making navigation
of the river ever more dangerous.

Rod
Meldrum fails to recognize this and further fails to apprise his readers of the
following statement on page 278 of his above-referenced report by the Army Corps
of Engineers regarding crossing the Des Moines Rapids:

The difficulty of navigation lies not so
much in the shallowness of the channel or the thread of the current as in its
unevenness of bottom, insufficient width [of the otherwise navigable chains of
channels within the rapids], tortuous directions and great velocity. The
influence of those features is exaggerated by cross surface and under currents
and by the east and west winds. (See Report of the Chief of
Engineers, U.S. Army, by United States Army Corps of Engineers,
https://books.google.com/books.)

Neville
agrees with Meldrum’s statement in an email sent to me on April 21, 2016:

Actually, the rapids here are the first
place the River can be crossed on foot north of the Gulf of Mexico. The photo
below is a modern scene, the result of the dam and lock system. The average
depth of the Mississippi before the dam was 2.4 feet, meaning it was even more
shallow in the summer. I recommend checking facts before reaching conclusions.

He
is correct about the photo of the Mississippi near Keokuk that I had attached
to my article, “Book of Mormon
Objective Geographic Standard No. 1.” I thank him for bringing that to my
attention and have deleted it from my article as it is anachronistic. However,
he is not correct in the following conclusions: (1) that travelers could have
crossed the Des Moines Rapids on foot, (2) that the Amlicites fought the
Nephites in the Mississippi River, or (3) that the Amlicite/Lamanite armies
followed the Nephites into the river. No one has ever fought a battle on foot
in the Mississippi River. That the Amlicites and Lamanite armies were located
on the west bank of the river Sidon that second day is sure. That they tried to
keep Alma and the Nephites in the river Sidon is also sure because that is what
the scripture says. But that this could have happened in the Mississippi River
is totally, to use Neville’s word about parts of my article, “goofy” (a
less-than-scholarly synonym for “unscholarly,” “illogical,” or “invalid”).

The
following is a description in 1870 of the difficulty of crossing the
Mississippi River at the Des Moines Rapids in a boat, let along on foot. These
rapids started at Montrose, Iowa, and ended eleven miles downriver near Keokuk,
Illinois.

The fall in eleven miles is twenty-two
feet; average width of Mississippi river, four thousand five hundred feet; its
mean depth, two and four-tenths feet; and its mean surface velocity is two and
eighty-eight hundredths feet per second. The tortuous, uncertain channel over
these rapids precludes the possibility of any craft navigating them in low
water. Even if the channel itself was wide and deep, no pilot would dare to
undertake to pass them at night. (See J. E. Griffith, “The
Des Moines Rapids of the Mississippi River, and Its Improvements,”The Annals
of Iowa, 1870, No. 2 [1870], 149–54.)

The
forced removal of Native Americans from the eastern part of the United States
during the infamous Trail of Tears march shows the treacherousness of crossing
of the Mississippi near the area of Nauvoo. They did not cross on foot but were
ferried across the Mississippi:

Two thirds of the ill-equipped Cherokee
that were trapped beside the frozen Mississippi River still remembered a
half-century later the hundreds of sick and dying in wagons or lying on the
frozen ground with only a single blanket provided by the government to each
Indian for shelter from the cold wind. Falling temperatures caused the surface
of the river to freeze before all the detachments could be ferried across. The
ice prevented both boat and horses from moving. Besides the cold, there was
starvation and malnutrition. Weakened by the hunger, the Cherokee became easy
victims of disease, particularly cholera, smallpox and dysentery. Many died on
both sides of the river waiting for [the] journey to resume. (See “Trail of
Tears Across the Mississippi Valley,”
http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/webprojects/LiveMiss/TrailofTears/trailparent.htm
[accessed May 26, 2016].)

Crossing
the Mississippi River on foot anywhere, at any time—except perhaps near its headwaters
in Minnesota and except when the Mormons crossed it on foot when it was frozen
over—was impossible. Without a doubt, contrary to what Neville claims on page
151 of his book, Moroni’s America,
the Amlicite/Lamanite army did not “follow the Nephites into” the
Mississippi/Sidon river near Montrose, Iowa, or near Gideon—or anywhere in the
Mississippi River for that matter. At pages 151–53, Neville says, “Because the
Lamanites ‘came upon’ the Nephites as the Nephites were crossing the river, the
Lamanites had to be behind the Nephites,
following them into the river” (emphasis added).

There
is no such definition of the term “came upon.” This is his personal definition
and is not what the scripture states or means. The synonyms suggested in a thesaurus
are “bump into,” “chance,” “encounter,” “meet,” “come across,” all of which do
not require catching up from behind.

Neville
continues:

An interesting feature of the
Mississippi River is the numerous islands that form in the channel. Here’s an
example.

This
section of the river, located just north of my proposed Gideon, is 2.5 miles
wide, from bank to bank. The island in the channel is about 1.5 miles wide at
its widest point. With this in mind, the desription in Alma of a battle taking
place while crossing the [Mississippi] river makes perfect sense. (See Jonathan
Neville, Moroni’s America: The North
American Setting for the Book of Mormon (n.p.: Digital Legend, 2016), 151–53.)

Neville further stated the following in an email to me “The
Lamanite/Amlicite army was moving all night,” and “I think they were on the
east side the entire time until the fight on the river.” He later said of my
statements, “Why don’t we stick to the text.”

I am sorry, Jonathon, but that statement is, to use your word,
“goofy.” It makes about as much sense as the Heartland geographic model
claiming that all events described in the Book of Mormon ocurred exclusively in
the Eastern United States. (I am not talking about the completion of prophesies
and promises to the covenant English Gentiles upon the most favored nation—the United
States—among other nations the Lord promised He would establish on “this
continent, North and South America”).

Neville talks about the Mesoamericanists taking scriptures
out of context and adding inferences that are not proper and so forth. This one
of his is far more egregious than any he has cited of the Mesoamericanists. The
text absolutely does not say what he claims it means. And the events absolutely
could not have happened in the Mississippi River.

By his own admission in his email to me, he stated that the
Des Moines “rapids
here are the first place the River can be crossed on foot north of the Gulf of
Mexico.” His proposed crossing of the Mississippi River, 2.5 miles north of his
proposed Gideon, is located 23 miles south of the end of the rapids at Keokuk
and therefore, by his own admission, impossible to cross the Mississippi on
foot, regardless of an island in the middle of it. Note also that there has
never been an island or large sandbar in the middle of the Des Moines Rapids.
“I recommend checking facts before making conclusions.”

Neville further states the on page 152:

As I read this, Alma
was crossing the river when the Lamanites attacked.The
battle ensued on the river; i.e.,
on one of these islands in the middle of the river [does not say this]. Alma
then cleared the west bank of the island [does not say this. It says “the bank
which was (located) on the west of the river Sidon” not west of an island] so
his people could “have room to cross and contend with the [enemy] on the west
side of the river” (Alma 2:34). This fits the text, which distinguishes beween
“ground, or rather the bank, which was on the west of the river”—the ground
Alma cleared—and the “west side of the river,” where Alma wanted to fight the
battle. [This is his conjecture but not what the scripture says. How did the
Lamanites/Amlicites ever get to the west bank of the Sidon ahead of Alma in the
first place?]

The scripture says “when they had all crossed the river Sidon,”
which I take to mean all the combatants, not just all the Nephites, [Neville
might believe this, but the scripture does not say it] Alma wisely saw that he
had to lure the Lamanites to the west side; [does not say this] the last thing
he would want is the Lamanites and Amlicites to return where they came from.
Once he got them on the west bank he could prevent them from returning home.
Instead, he scattered them on the west and north. [All this is so much
conjecture and guessing. Why not stick to what Joseph’s translation says?]

Just imagine that! About forty thousand Nephites, Lamanites—so
numerous they could not be counted (Alma 2:35), and Amlicites all converging on
foot that morning on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River and Alma
“luring” Amlici to the west side of the island—which did not exist in the
rapids—so he could kill him and toss his body into the Mississippi River so
that he could then climb upon the west bank of the river. Of course, he then
had to help all the other combatant Lamanites out of the Mississippi River upon
the west bank so he could then scatter them to the west and north to Hermounts!
Neville should have written the Book of Mormon. His version is far more
entertaining, and he knows a lot more about the “facts” than Mormon did. He
even knows where Alma wanted to fight the battle all along—not on the island
but upon the west bank of the Mississippi—after they crossed the Mississippi
and the island! Like Neville told me in the email “This is just goofy.”

And what about all those fleeing farmers and their wives,
children, and flocks. Did they also cross the Mississippi—maybe even ahead of
the Amlicites? Maybe the scouts did not have to tell Alma about the fleeing
people from Minon because the people were fleeing ahead of the Lamanites and
already had passed by Alma’s camp at Gideon. Why did Alma, instead of racing to
beat the Amlicites to the city of Zarahemla, not stay in Gideon and, while his
army was fresh, lay ambush against the Lamanites? The Amlicites would have been
exhausted, having traveled and fought all the first day, fled twenty-fur more
miles to Minon by midnight, and then turned around and, during the night,
marched back twenty-four miles to Gideon, according to Neville. Alma would have
had a great tactical and stratigic advantage. Why flee from them? Why not
protect the fleeing farmers and their wives right there? Or another
possibility, if the Lamanites/Amlicites were behind Alma by twenty-four miles,
why did Alma not simply beat them to the river, cross the river, climb the west
bank of the river, and then kill them as they attempted to climb out of the
Mississippi? What a bunch of “goofy” nonsense. Let’s stick to the text of the
Book of Mormon. And let’s stick to reality and the factual and historical impossibility
of crossing the Mississippi on foot.

I agree with what Gregory L. Smith says as he summarizes his
analysis of Neville’s interpretation of Alma 22:27:

There
is no common interpretive rule or principle that guides Neville’s
exegesis—instead, he seems to pick and choose depending on the needs of the
North American model. . . .

In
conclusion, I am reluctant to accept Neville’s chiastic argument based upon
Alma 22:27 on at least three grounds: (1) the existence of the chiasmus is
dubious; (2) its presence in Neville’s reading leads to conclusions at variance
with the Book of Mormon text, many of which
make the actors’ military choices nonsensical; and (3) Neville’s reading
requires him to make ad hoc assumptions
and leaps at least as large [or larger] as those he roundly condemns in others.

Neville’s
production of a map and detailed explanation for how it was produced represent
a major step forward for Heartland advocates. Unfortunately, an examination of
even a few verses reveals this model’s errors, ad hoc assumptions, and ignored details. These flaws suggest
the need to begin again, and this would be best done via an internal model
justified on its own terms without reference to any real-world location.(SeeGregory L. Smith, “‘From the Sea East Even to the Sea West’: Thoughts on a
Proposed Book of Mormon Chiasm Describing Geography in Alma 22:27,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture,
vol. 19 [2016], 378.)

Bottom line: Because the Mississippi River could not have
been crossed on foot at or near Montrose, Iowa, then the Mississippi River
could not have been the river Sidon of the Book of Mormon.

[xvi]. See Report of
the Chief of Engineers Accompanying Report of the Secretary of War (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1867), 278,
https://books.google.com/books?id=1qRTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false;
emphasis added (accessed May 23, 2016).

Here's my problem with taking how verbiage was used within the context of Arabia and then applying it to the rest of its usage throughout the rest of the BOM:

What if they went to a place that was entirely DIFFERENT from almost anything they'd ever experienced? What if they went from a dry, sandy, desolate, flat place (with occasional mountains), to a place that was wet, green, criss-crossed by massive rivers (or just several rivers), etc? In other words, a geography entirely different from Arabia.

Do you think they'd spontaneously invent new words and concepts to describe their new circumstances, or would they adapt their current language and paradigm?

About Me

I like the way Daft Punk wear robot suits in public. I'd rather focus on the music than the personalities. Same with Internet discussions; I'd rather focus on the information and the logic of the arguments than the personalities. That said, people want to know I'm a real person, so here's a photo of me at the UN in New York.